M.L. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS appeal of plaintiff Chiraguddin is directed against the judgment of the learned Single judge setting aside the award given by the sole arbitrator Amin. The facts giving rise to this litigation may in a nut shall be placed below.
(2.) A suit was filed by Chiraguddin against the respondents. That suit was decreed by the trial court. The respondents filed an appeal against that decree and the judgment of the trial court, in this Court. During the course of pendency of the appeal the parties agreed to refer the matter to the sole arbitrator Amin, who has been the real brother of Chiraguddin and the cousin of respondents Luqman, Qasim and Abdullah. It, may be mentioned here that Amin appeared in the trial as a witness on behalf of the defendants. Since the entire arguments of the parties are centered round the interpretation of the deed of reference, it, will be worth while to reproduced the relevant language of that deed whereby the parties choose to refer the matter for arbitration to Amin, in the deed of reference it was mentioned. You are competent to decide the dispute after making such enquiry as you please and you are not bound to keep any record of evidence (Oral of Documentary) which you may like to examine. In case you want to examine the record or the case or documents, you may inform this Court so that the record may be sent to the lower court for your examination. Amin gave his award. The respondents filed objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to that award and inter alia submitted that the award stands will and, because she arbitrator treed his personal knowledge in giving the award with given notice thereof to the parties It was also urged cannot be upheld because it was given in dear violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was ever given to the respondents by Amin, the sole arbitrator and as such, disproved them of their valuable rights of placing their case before the arbitrator.
(3.) THE learned judge, while setting aside the award observed: In the present case the parties can be imputed with the knowledge that the arbitrator Amin was personally aware of the controversy between the parties. He was near relative of both the parties being the brother of she plaintiff -respondent and the cousin of the appellants. Apart from that be had appeared as a witness in the case and had made a statement which was favourable to the appellants. Therefore. the parties can be taken to have agreed that the arbitrator would undoubtedly be using has personal knowledge. If the matter were to stand as that then perhaps there would be very little for the appellants to contend against the validity of the award, but I cannot lose sight of the statement made by the arbitrator in Court. If his knowledge of the truth was of one kind then one would expect him to tell how the knowledge became the other way round in the course of his conducting the arbitration. It may be that there would be such irresistible facts or documents before him as might induce him to change his previous opinion, but then according to the principles of natural justice which govern such proceedings the appellant was entitled to know from the arbitrator what it was that brought about a change in the so -called personal knowledge....;